IT
Let me start this off by stating I'm a huge Stephen King fan. Yes, he can sling a lot of absolutely off-the-wall schlock and in my opinion, you can argue that most of his work past the 00's may not even be worth reading (with the exception of 11/22/63, Under the Dome, and Lisey's Story, which I enjoyed immensely). That being said, IT is one of my absolute favorite works, and therefore I was hyped with a healthy dose of skepticism for the new IT film.
I will say, I was blown away. It's not a perfect film, and still strays quite far from the novel, but it just FEELS right. The kids in this are great actors, and it took a little bit of getting used to the new Pennywise but I was of the opinion that he's just as creepy as Tim Curry, albeit in a slightly different way. And yes, it is a very funny movie, which is odd to say. I get a very Stranger Things vibe, which may be exactly what they're going for.
I also feel that even if you haven't read the book, it's a good movie as a standalone. But as a Costant Reader, it couldn't have been much better in my eyes.
Thoughts?
I will say, I was blown away. It's not a perfect film, and still strays quite far from the novel, but it just FEELS right. The kids in this are great actors, and it took a little bit of getting used to the new Pennywise but I was of the opinion that he's just as creepy as Tim Curry, albeit in a slightly different way. And yes, it is a very funny movie, which is odd to say. I get a very Stranger Things vibe, which may be exactly what they're going for.
I also feel that even if you haven't read the book, it's a good movie as a standalone. But as a Costant Reader, it couldn't have been much better in my eyes.
Thoughts?
Comments
I write this as a person who has watched both the movie and the miniseries (in case of the latter, several times), and read the book a couple of years ago. In general I think the new movie is not scary, the departures from the book are too many and do not help the movie, and character development is limited. In comparison, the old mini series (talking about the children's part) was more faithful to the setting of the book (not without exception), and each of the kids (using the word broadly here, as some of the actors were clearly teenagers) had distinct personalities and traits; the scares were sparse, but Tim Curry's performance and presence made up a lot for it.
So, into the specifics:
The new movie is set up in the late 1980's rather than 1960. The only cues we get about the timeframe are one casio watch here, the New Kids On the Block poster there, etc... but in general it feels kind of vague. The old one ir rightly set in 1960, and in comparison does feel as a distinct decade. I like the photography of the new one better, though.
The kids in both movies are good actors, but in the new one they stripped off the personality of most: Bill does not show an interest in writting stories; Ben did not have any drama about his dad and his troubles home (or an interest in building); Mike did not show any interest in History (that was transferred to Ben) and did not have any special problems with the Bowers family, as in the book; and Stanley did not have any trait, period. Richie joked and talked a lot, but nothing indicated his later interest in being a comedian. And Beverly was not so flirtatious, and her father abused her physically in the book, not sexually as in the movie, she did not get to show proficiency with the slingshot (though in the 80's only Dennis the Menace used a slingshot ). In contrast, the 80's miniseries did convey these traits.
The weakest point about the miniseries is the lack of physical engagement that happened in the book, between the kids and Pennywise. In the new movies there are several instances (though some are entirely invented). That is a good point about the movie.
On departures from the book, this is one of the worst offences of the movie: the 80's setting and kids personalities already discussed; the parents that appear are different than in the book (Bill's dad barely makes an appearance); the complete absence of the Bowers gang in the sewers chase (and how Bowers himself is dispatched unceremoniously); no Ritual of Chud, no reference to King's mythology; Beverly's rapey confrontation with her dad, the kidnapping of Beverly by It... On the bright side we have the house in Neibolt street, which never appeared in the miniseries.
About the scares, the movie tries harder than the miniseries, but it is not very effective. I don't know if I am too jaded or what, but none of It's attemps to scare the kids made me flinch. The miniseries was not a lot better in that regard, but Tim Curry's performance is disturbing enough to almost make up to it.
Finally, about the clown himself: the new one has a distinct look I like, but the performance feels soulless. He relied too much in approaching the kids fast and violently, rather than mocking and playing with their minds as Curry did.
I will say while I understand creative control and personal vision I'm not sure why so much is always changed from the novels. I understand budgetary reasons (which is one reason I think this was set closer to modern times) and such but to completely change character traits has always struck me odd. Seems to happen a LOT with King works. I look at 11/22/63 as a good adaptation, but even that changes so much it makes you wonder.
It is good that they left out the whole gangbang thing from both the movie and tv mini series, you would think people would question Mr.King about that sick crap.
No need to question.. The answer is always cocaine.
I found it pretty meh... here goes mini review (SPOILERS AHEAD):
I write this as a person who has watched both the movie and the miniseries (in case of the latter, several times), and read the book a couple of years ago. In general I think the new movie is not scary, the departures from the book are too many and do not help the movie, and character development is limited. In comparison, the old mini series (talking about the children's part) was more faithful to the setting of the book (not without exception), and each of the kids (using the word broadly here, as some of the actors were clearly teenagers) had distinct personalities and traits; the scares were sparse, but Tim Curry's performance and presence made up a lot for it.
So, into the specifics:
The new movie is set up in the late 1980's rather than 1960. The only cues we get about the timeframe are one casio watch here, the New Kids On the Block poster there, etc... but in general it feels kind of vague. The old one ir rightly set in 1960, and in comparison does feel as a distinct decade. I like the photography of the new one better, though.
The kids in both movies are good actors, but in the new one they stripped off the personality of most: Bill does not show an interest in writting stories; Ben did not have any drama about his dad and his troubles home (or an interest in building); Mike did not show any interest in History (that was transferred to Ben) and did not have any special problems with the Bowers family, as in the book; and Stanley did not have any trait, period. Richie joked and talked a lot, but nothing indicated his later interest in being a comedian. And Beverly was not so flirtatious, and her father abused her physically in the book, not sexually as in the movie, she did not get to show proficiency with the slingshot (though in the 80's only Dennis the Menace used a slingshot ). In contrast, the 80's miniseries did convey these traits.
The weakest point about the miniseries is the lack of physical engagement that happened in the book, between the kids and Pennywise. In the new movies there are several instances (though some are entirely invented). That is a good point about the movie.
On departures from the book, this is one of the worst offences of the movie: the 80's setting and kids personalities already discussed; the parents that appear are different than in the book (Bill's dad barely makes an appearance); the complete absence of the Bowers gang in the sewers chase (and how Bowers himself is dispatched unceremoniously); no Ritual of Chud, no reference to King's mythology; Beverly's rapey confrontation with her dad, the kidnapping of Beverly by It... On the bright side we have the house in Neibolt street, which never appeared in the miniseries.
About the scares, the movie tries harder than the miniseries, but it is not very effective. I don't know if I am too jaded or what, but none of It's attemps to scare the kids made me flinch. The miniseries was not a lot better in that regard, but Tim Curry's performance is disturbing enough to almost make up to it.
Finally, about the clown himself: the new one has a distinct look I like, but the performance feels soulless. He relied too much in approaching the kids fast and violently, rather than mocking and playing with their minds as Curry did.
Very good mini-review with some great points. I imagine the task at hand for the screenwriters and director was a stiff one; Make a movie different from the TV miniseries, stay true to the source material (an incredibly long book), develop about a dozen characters, and do it all within 2 hours while delivering scares throughout. I'm satisfied with the end result taken for what it is, but there was definitely a TON of fat-trimming, even compared to the TV miniseries.
I should also mention that I am not pleased with Bill Skarsgard's performance as Pennywise. Maybe he's just too young to play the role convincingly. Tim Curry as Pennywise was the most perfectly cast role I can think of off the top of my head. I mean he nailed that role, and left enormous clownshoes to fill. Skarsgard definitely missed the mark for me, especially in his speaking. He didn't sound natural, he sounded like a guy faking a voice, and the end result actually sounded more like Scooby-Doo talking than anything else. I really think they should have cast someone else in the role.
I didn't like it.
1) I didn't think it was scary.
-Jump-scares are cheap, and this movie seemed to hinge on them. Even still, most we're poorly placed (which made them quite predictable). The rest of the scare tactics didn't really do much for me.
2) I didn't think it was funny.
-Aside from the occasional one-liner, I didn't find a lot of humor in the movie. Maybe I wasn't supposed to.
3) Many of the characters felt pointless and expendable.
-I can't say I've ever seen a movie where I felt that the majority of the main cast wasn't really needed. Most of the kids seemed to add one, maybe two small elements to the story. The rest of it rode on Bill's shoulders, who was an underwhelming character himself (and Beverly, being the love interest... yippie).
4) Story dragged on.
-Pretty self explanatory.
At the end of the day, I accepted that this movie wasn't made for me. I don't like Stephen King's writing style, I'm not a horror guy, and I knew absolutely nothing about this particular story. The movie flew over my head, more than likely, which is fine. I did enjoy the acting, some of the CGI, and some of the bits of character development that were there.
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I just saw this movie.
I didn't like it.
1) I didn't think it was scary.
-Jump-scares are cheap, and this movie seemed to hinge on them. Even still, most we're poorly placed (which made them quite predictable). The rest of the scare tactics didn't really do much for me.
2) I didn't think it was funny.
-Aside from the occasional one-liner, I didn't find a lot of humor in the movie. Maybe I wasn't supposed to.
3) Many of the characters felt pointless and expendable.
-I can't say I've ever seen a movie where I felt that the majority of the main cast wasn't really needed. Most of the kids seemed to add one, maybe two small elements to the story. The rest of it rode on Bill's shoulders, who was an underwhelming character himself (and Beverly, being the love interest... yippie).
4) Story dragged on.
-Pretty self explanatory.
At the end of the day, I accepted that this movie wasn't made for me. I don't like Stephen King's writing style, I'm not a horror guy, and I knew absolutely nothing about this particular story. The movie flew over my head, more than likely, which is fine. I did enjoy the acting, some of the CGI, and some of the bits of character development that were there.
Have you seen the original TV miniseries? I feel you'd find that a much better movie. The characters were developed and meaningful, the movie is scary as hell and there's not a single jumpscare in the entire thing.
Have you seen the original TV miniseries? I feel you'd find that a much better movie. The characters were developed and meaningful, the movie is scary as hell and there's not a single jumpscare in the entire thing.
No, this was my first experience with the story. I'll definitely give it a look though.
I did watch a review last night that explained the over-arching metaphor in the movie as well as some of the fine details that support it. Once I realized that, I appreciated the movie a bit more.
Have you seen the original TV miniseries? I feel you'd find that a much better movie. The characters were developed and meaningful, the movie is scary as hell and there's not a single jumpscare in the entire thing.
No, this was my first experience with the story. I'll definitely give it a look though.
I did watch a review last night that explained the over-arching metaphor in the movie as well as some of the fine details that support it. Once I realized that, I appreciated the movie a bit more.
Can you post a link to that review? I'd like to see the theory of an overarching metaphor in the story.
Have you seen the original TV miniseries? I feel you'd find that a much better movie. The characters were developed and meaningful, the movie is scary as hell and there's not a single jumpscare in the entire thing.
No, this was my first experience with the story. I'll definitely give it a look though.
I did watch a review last night that explained the over-arching metaphor in the movie as well as some of the fine details that support it. Once I realized that, I appreciated the movie a bit more.
Can you post a link to that review? I'd like to see the theory of an overarching metaphor in the story.
Sure. I'll post it later this afternoon.
Here it is.
Cheers, thanks a lot
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I just saw this movie.
I didn't like it.
1) I didn't think it was scary.
-Jump-scares are cheap, and this movie seemed to hinge on them. Even still, most we're poorly placed (which made them quite predictable). The rest of the scare tactics didn't really do much for me.
2) I didn't think it was funny.
-Aside from the occasional one-liner, I didn't find a lot of humor in the movie. Maybe I wasn't supposed to.
3) Many of the characters felt pointless and expendable.
-I can't say I've ever seen a movie where I felt that the majority of the main cast wasn't really needed. Most of the kids seemed to add one, maybe two small elements to the story. The rest of it rode on Bill's shoulders, who was an underwhelming character himself (and Beverly, being the love interest... yippie).
4) Story dragged on.
-Pretty self explanatory.
At the end of the day, I accepted that this movie wasn't made for me. I don't like Stephen King's writing style, I'm not a horror guy, and I knew absolutely nothing about this particular story. The movie flew over my head, more than likely, which is fine. I did enjoy the acting, some of the CGI, and some of the bits of character development that were there.
I agree with you completely. With all its flaws, the miniseries does a better job in my opinion: it is memorable. The new one, no one will remember after 10 years. Tell me if Tim Curry was not the definite Pennywise:
Here it is.
Cheers, thanks a lot
No problem!
I like the idea of Pennywise being more than just a scary clown. More specifically, I thought it was interesting how the movie showed each character's interaction with the clown via some sort of clue. I also thought it was interesting how dull the adults in the movie were. I didn't pick up on it when I watched it.
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I just saw this movie.
I didn't like it.
1) I didn't think it was scary.
-Jump-scares are cheap, and this movie seemed to hinge on them. Even still, most we're poorly placed (which made them quite predictable). The rest of the scare tactics didn't really do much for me.
2) I didn't think it was funny.
-Aside from the occasional one-liner, I didn't find a lot of humor in the movie. Maybe I wasn't supposed to.
3) Many of the characters felt pointless and expendable.
-I can't say I've ever seen a movie where I felt that the majority of the main cast wasn't really needed. Most of the kids seemed to add one, maybe two small elements to the story. The rest of it rode on Bill's shoulders, who was an underwhelming character himself (and Beverly, being the love interest... yippie).
4) Story dragged on.
-Pretty self explanatory.
At the end of the day, I accepted that this movie wasn't made for me. I don't like Stephen King's writing style, I'm not a horror guy, and I knew absolutely nothing about this particular story. The movie flew over my head, more than likely, which is fine. I did enjoy the acting, some of the CGI, and some of the bits of character development that were there.
I agree with you completely. With all its flaws, the miniseries does a better job in my opinion: it is memorable. The new one, no one will remember after 10 years. Tell me if Tim Curry was not the definite Pennywise:
That was... awesome.
It flowed from light-hearted and humourous to legitimately terrifying by the end of the clip. That's some good acting right there.
I'm not gonna comment too much as I've never read the book or seen the mini-series, but the movie was not the greatest in my opinion. It somehow felt rushed when all the kids had their interaction with Pennywise in the middle of the movie but then dragged on at the end. I didn't really like the new Pennywise as much and felt it wasn't as scary/creepy as the original (might be because I am older). The whole Henry part of the story was virtually pointless and added nothing to the movie. It never really answered any questions at the end either about the floating kids and how the girl came back. Also, definintely should have just ended with the main character shooting his 'brother' instead of the drawn out fight scene. Overall, I didn't find it scary or inventive in any way. Just another needless, forgettable remake in my opinion.
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I just saw this movie.
I didn't like it.
1) I didn't think it was scary.
-Jump-scares are cheap, and this movie seemed to hinge on them. Even still, most we're poorly placed (which made them quite predictable). The rest of the scare tactics didn't really do much for me.
2) I didn't think it was funny.
-Aside from the occasional one-liner, I didn't find a lot of humor in the movie. Maybe I wasn't supposed to.
3) Many of the characters felt pointless and expendable.
-I can't say I've ever seen a movie where I felt that the majority of the main cast wasn't really needed. Most of the kids seemed to add one, maybe two small elements to the story. The rest of it rode on Bill's shoulders, who was an underwhelming character himself (and Beverly, being the love interest... yippie).
4) Story dragged on.
-Pretty self explanatory.
At the end of the day, I accepted that this movie wasn't made for me. I don't like Stephen King's writing style, I'm not a horror guy, and I knew absolutely nothing about this particular story. The movie flew over my head, more than likely, which is fine. I did enjoy the acting, some of the CGI, and some of the bits of character development that were there.
I agree with you completely. With all its flaws, the miniseries does a better job in my opinion: it is memorable. The new one, no one will remember after 10 years. Tell me if Tim Curry was not the definite Pennywise:
That was... awesome.
It flowed from light-hearted and humourous to legitimately terrifying by the end of the clip. That's some good acting right there.
That's just a taste of what the original movie was like. Trust me you've gotta see the whole thing. You can't allow the new one to turn you away from it!
That's just a taste of what the original movie was like. Trust me you've gotta see the whole thing. You can't allow the new one to turn you away from it!
Oh yeah, I'll check it out for sure!
*** massive spoiler ***
I'm not gonna comment too much as I've never read the book or seen the mini-series, but the movie was not the greatest in my opinion. It somehow felt rushed when all the kids had their interaction with Pennywise in the middle of the movie but then dragged on at the end. I didn't really like the new Pennywise as much and felt it wasn't as scary/creepy as the original (might be because I am older). The whole Henry part of the story was virtually pointless and added nothing to the movie. It never really answered any questions at the end either about the floating kids and how the girl came back. Also, definintely should have just ended with the main character shooting his 'brother' instead of the drawn out fight scene. Overall, I didn't find it scary or inventive in any way. Just another needless, forgettable remake in my opinion.
Apparently, that's what Pennywise meant when he told Georgie "You'll float down here."
I don't think it was executed very well unfortunately.
IT dips into the Nightmare on Elm Street remake territory a little bit, with the over the top stuff but I think it's a little more memorable. Hopefully the second part is much better than the TV show second part. That was awful.
Originally posted by: RandomHero
You haven't watched it? You're missing out man. It's cheesy, but in a very lovable way. And Tim Curry undeniably NAILS the role. I think the new Pennywise is fine and a refreshing change, but I do wonder what could have been.
One thing I didn't really like about this IT is that Pennywise was always evil or menacing, even in appearance. In the original movie, Pennywise was often joking and playing the role of an everyday clown and would then turn sour which worked a lot better in my opinion. He kinda lures you in. Where as this most recent movie he always came across as creepy. I think the actor did a good job with the designed role though.
You haven't watched it? You're missing out man. It's cheesy, but in a very lovable way. And Tim Curry undeniably NAILS the role. I think the new Pennywise is fine and a refreshing change, but I do wonder what could have been.
My friend is fascinated by how few movies and TV shows I've seen. We've even turned it into a little game, he'll throw out a movie and I'll (usually) tell him I haven't seen it. Good way to pass the time on a roadtrip, haha.
But no, I haven't seen it, nor have I read the book. The original series looks pretty good though, I'm definitely going to check it out.